2840 7 13274 1 34893 document 13274 მეტონიმია ჟენეტთან.doc application/msword f15c468c3c11b3478c997c19ea2f9175 MD5 51712 2015-06-01 13:26:58 http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/2840/1/%E1%83%9B%E1%83%94%E1%83%A2%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C%E1%83%98%E1%83%9B%E1%83%98%E1%83%90%20%E1%83%9F%E1%83%94%E1%83%9C%E1%83%94%E1%83%A2%E1%83%97%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C.doc 2840 1 1 application/msword text en public

მეტონიმია ჟენეტთან.doc

30744 1 71583 document 30744 indexcodes.txt text/plain ab17e7d54dcfca9a31577289dbf27ea1 MD5 7713 2016-07-25 14:32:11 http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/2840/2/indexcodes.txt 2840 2 2 text/plain other Generate index codes conversion from text to indexcodes ge public

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/id/document/13274 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/id/document/13274 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/id/document/13274 archive 4085 disk0/00/00/28/40 2015-06-02 05:48:41 2015-06-02 05:48:41 2015-06-02 05:48:41 article show ლომიძე თამარ tamar_lomidze@iliauni.edu.ge pub ComparativeLiterature ins12 public Genett’s Metonymy The article analyses the work of famous French philologist Gérard Genette -`Proust’s Metonymy~. The methodological base of Genette’s work is Roman Jakobson’s linguopoetical conception. Following Jakobson, Genette reasons about metaphorical and metonymical relations and implies not only tropes, but generally all semantic relations, which are based on principles of analogy and neighbourhood (or selection and combination). It should be mentioned that Genette attaches no importance to textual expressions of metaphorical and metonymical relations. He takes into consideration mainly factual likeness and neighbourhood of real objects, which are reflected in texts. Genette declines linguistic interpretation that implies putting the former to the plan of speech and the latter to the plan of language. Besides that, while analyzing Proust’s artistic style, Genette attempts to imagine the operations of selection and combination (proceeding in author’s consciousness), which give birth to metaphor, in first case, and to metonymy, im second case. However it is easy to observe that the results of such analysis are not thoroughly convincing, because Genette takes into consideration mostly the author and much less the recipient. But while creative working there is no text as syntagmatical object. Accordingly, there are no oppositional relations of speech and language and it’s impossible to distinguish metaphorical and metonymical plans of text. Only when the recipient, while perceiving the text, realizes the operation of selection, the corresponding element should be attributed to metaphorical plan, and when it is not necessary to realize this operation and the linguistic units make hard (textually strengthened or being usual for consciousness of linguistic body) syntagmes, it is possible to reason about metaphorical or metonymical plans, presented in text. In fact, Genette rejects Jakobson’s conception and also its base _ the linguistic doctrine of F.de Saussure, which gives hard, reliable foundation for the analysis of the style of literary texts including Proust’s texts. Hence, Genette’s conclusions about `metaphors, projected on metonymies~, which are typical for Proust (according to Genette), require certain corrections. 2006 published „სჯანი“ 7 შოთა რუსთაველის ქართული ლიტერატურის ინსტიტუტი FALSE 1512-2514